15 Asexual Relationships I7hat Does Asexuality Have to Do with Polyamory?

Home , Asexuality, Intimate relationship, Polyamory

Kristin S. Scherrer

Popular understandings about polyamories and non-monogamies largely focus on sex and sexual intimacy.l Yet, to what extent do these ideas need to necessarily accompany each other? ri7hat might a discussion of polyamory look like without a focus on sexual behaviors? An investigation of asexual identities reveals new possibilities for conceptualizing polyamories and non-monogamies. In this chapter I provide a brief description of the intersections of asexual identity and polyamory, an under-represented topic in academic literature. This chapter contributes to a burgeoning field of scholarship on polyamories through a description of how individuals with asexual identities inform understandings of polyamory and monog- amn opening up space to consider the intricacies of relationships. Asexuality has been explored in academic scholarship along several dimensions, including as an identity (Jay,2003; Prause and Graham,2007; Scherrer, 2008), as a lack of desire for sexual behaviors (Bogaert, 2004; 2006), and within specialized populations, such as persons with disabilities (Milligan and Neufeldt,2001l or lesbians (Rothblum and Brehony, 1,993). Here, I focus my analysis on individuals with asexual identities, as individuals who are able to uniquely shed light on the construction of relationships where sex and/or sexual intimacy are generally explicitly absent. Elsewhere, I describe that, in addition to an asexual identity, another salient identity for asexual individuals may be a romantic or aromantic identity, which designates an interest (or lack thereof) in monogamous, intimate relationships (Scherrer, 2008). Other work extends this finding, showing that some asexual identified individuals describe current or idealized relationships that fit definitions of polyamorous relationships (Scherrer, in press). Here, I explore how taking on an identity that revolves around a lack of sexual desire matters for how individuals construct relationships. To better understand asexual identities, I conducted an Internet survey with 102 self-identified asexual individuals. Participants were recruited from asexuality.org, a main Internet networking website for asexual identi- 6ed individuals. The survey asked open ended questions about a variety of topics including demographics, asexual identit6 and relationships. Data were analyzed using open and focused coding (Emerson, Fretz and Shaw, Asexual Relationships 155 1995). (For more details_of my methodology and sample, see Scherrer, 200g, and scherrer, in press.) In.this chaprer, I frimarily draw from the foriowing questions: 'what are the distinctions, in your mind, between intimate rela- ;In tionships, friendships-and romantic partnerships?,, an ideal world, what would a relationship look like for you?', and, 'would you clescribe yourself as interested in a monogamous, intimate rerationshipi wrry or why not?,

RELATIONSHIPS WITHOUT SEX

The presence of sexual behaviors is often a defining characteristic of intimate relationships (Rothblum and Brehony, 1993).lhis char"ceristic can create challenges for asexual individuars,'whose id.ntity revolves around the irrelevance of sexual desire or attracrion in their lives. Some participants describe the relevance of sexual behaviors as a distinguishing.h"rr.- teristic for types of relationships. one example of this is Li-a, a 45-year=old white woman, who indicates that sexual intimacy is a key component in distinguishing berween friendships and intimate o. romr.,tic relaiionships. She says:

Intimate relationships and romantic partnerships are the same thing to me, it means that you are willing to share in sixual activities to some degree, from kissing to intercourie. Friendships can be with either sex, with persons who share your interests in some way and will spend time with you.

These examples may indicate that, for an individual whose identity revolves around an absence of interest in sex, intimate or romantic relationships may feel unavailable. while Lia and others see intimare and romantic relationships as similarly involving sexual behaviors, others distinguish intimate anl romantic relationships. one example of this is Linda, u, 1g-y.rr-old white woman, who states:

I'd say intimate relationships would invorve sexual activity and kissing. It's harder for me to define the difference between friends and romantic partners though. For me, a romantic relationship would be more physi_ cal and have more trust involved on my part th"n friendsrrips . . . I see friendships wirh more joking and chatiing, and romantic reiationships with all of that plus discussions and connections on a deeper level. vhile Linda first describes how intimate relationships usually characrer- istically involve sexual behavior, she then makes space in her description for relationships that are 'deeper' than friendships, yet .rot .r..errarily involving sexual behaviors. In this way, Linda, ,rrd oth".r, carefully create '1.56 Kristin S. Scherrer space for emotionally deep, trusting relationships that do not depend on sexual behaviors. In contrast to these participants, others describe the distinctions between relationships as more complicated. Charles, a 24-year-old white man, describes the distinctions between intimate relationships, friendships and romantic partnerships as, 'Only a linguistic one. I think that they represent ways to divide relationships that are based on sexuality, but that aren't necessarily that useful or accurate for asexual people.' Similarly, Casey, a 24 year-old-white woman, states: 'I think the standard friendship vs. romance is a spectrum, not a binary, and it can be difficult to pin any given relationship down.' Charles and Casey both illustrate a common sentiment-that the distinctions between types of relationships can be challenging to cate- gorize,particularly for asexual individuals whose relationships may be less likely to include sexual behaviors. Perhaps because the language ofrelation- ships is highly dependent on the presence or absence of sexual behaviors, certain types of relationships are less readily discursively 'available' to asexual individuals. This may require asexual individuals to rewrite language to more accurately describe their relationships, much as Ritchie and Barker (2006) describe for individuals in polyamorous communities.

MONOGAMY IN ASEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS

For those participants who expressed an interest in romantic or intimate relationships, monogamy often figures centrally. For instance,Elena, a 24 year old white woman, said that, 'I sometimes imagine an'ideal' relationship. However, I don't have to say much about it, except that it is hetero- sexual, monogamous, and I have a very sincere understanding partner.' Similarly, Rose, a 20 year old white woman says, 'I want to have a deep, monogamous relationship with a man, but don't wish to engage in sexual activities with him or anyone else.' The centrality of heterosexuality and monogamy for the relationships of many asexual individuals is further sup- ported elsewhere (Scherrer, 2008; in press). Despite monogamy's relatively prominent role as an idealized relationship component, monogamy is also often described as challenging' One example of this is Sarah, aZ2-year-old white woman, who describes herself as interested in a monogamous intimate relationship, 'as long as it was nonsexual.' She later explains that this question was challenging to answer because, 'I only understand the word'monogamous' in a sexual way.' Simi- larln Alex, a-1.9-year-old white man, states that he is not interested in a monogamous intimate relationship. 'I can have several intimate relationships without it ever being considered cheating, and if it were monogamous, then it would restrict my friendships with other people.' In other words, while Alex and Sarah have different perspectives on the desir- ability of monogamy for their own relationships, they both indicate that Asexual Relationships l57 monogamy is virtualry unintelrigibre outside perhaps of its relationship to sexual behavior' as with ,o-"riri. undlrrrr,,,rt. rerationships, rhe concept of monogamy is so imbued *rtt, r."rrtity and sexual b.h";-i; that it be a challenging term for individuair;'hr may are not inrerested sexual aspects of relationships to wield.

ASEXUAL NON-MONOGAMIES

while monogamy is important for some participants, others describe romantic or relatiorrar their interests as.poryamorous or non-monogamous. These non-monogamous -ior-r"or asexual indiviiuars r.p..r..rr poryr*- orous relarionships t-ha1,ar1-1s of y.t-ur."plored in academic literature. rvhen asked about his idear ,"lutiorrrhip,thurr.r, a 24-year-ord said, 'I'm white man de'nitely inrerested i" i"i*rte rerationship. I'm much more polyamgrglr;, "" rillgrr, Id say E.dward, a 21_year_ola _nir._rn, similarly describes polyamory as his ideal ,.lrrifrrhip for_.

I am interested in more intimate rerationships than most peopre seek out. This could be.monogamous or a group relationship (a tionship with single rela_ murtipre peopre *ho ,r. a, devoted to tha.n relationslr,o:.y!*: "rih other rather Sulfple p.opf. are devoted to each orher on an individual basis). t wourd idearv rike. a rerationship where partici_ pants were a, completely owned by th" relationship;r; w^hl;. while Edward does not use the.term 'polyamory, relationship, to describe his ideal his inrerests in.murtipl. who other f*pr. are deyoted to each closely mirrors definitions ;? (Haritaworn, Klesse, 2006). ;;;r*.ry Lin, and Not all participants who describe themselves as open to a poryamorous relationship describe it as ideal. F", in;;;;., CaseS says,

I don't know how feasible mo_nogamy would be for me, given that I,m asexual and most other peopre i."ri, but I've gr;; p;""f.;lnce for it. I'm willing to try a polyr-orou, o, oth.r*r*?.rrJrrrr, non_mo_ nogamous relationship, but monogamy seems like it would feel more secure to me.

As she alludes to here,.casey says that a monogamous relationship someone who values her with disinierest in sexual behavior is somewhat unlikely and, therefore, she is willing to p"lyr;;;;;, ..turiorrrnip, as another option. Casey's "*ptor. narrativJ ,uppi.,, th" id"" ,f,ri ,,,onogamy with assumptions is l:nbu,ed of.sexr"rir. i;;is case, the ringuistic tion between associa- monogamy and sex,ratiry polyamorous nogamous -rt., and non_mo_ relationships a more viable option. 158 Kristin S. Scberrer while many individuals describe polyamorous relationships, the descrip- tions of these relationships varied c-nsiderably. Katia, a Z1-year-old white woman, describes her iJeal relationship as, 'An intimate friendship, not ,r...rrrrily monogamous, relationship with someone I feel very connected with. 'we would meet a few times a week but live apart.' For Katia, an intimate relationship would not necessarily be monogamous, nor would it necessitate sharing a residence. This is different than Jessica , a 21-yearold white woman, who describes her ideal relationship as an,

asexual polyamorous household; basically, lots of roommates I could cuddle *ith ,.rd have close mutual relationships with. I particularly like the idea of a small group of friends or lovers who are all devoted to each other, in a closed poly relationship.

Similarly, Rita, a 28-year-old white woman, describes another perspective on an ideal relationshiP.

I desire a socially monogamous, intimate relationship. I don't care about the sex, but if my partnir wants me to haye sex I would need him to be sexually monogamous. But if he wants to go elsewhere alld forgo sex with me altogether that is fine, too. Better, actually. I would be open to a polyamorous-relationship but I have never tried it and am skeptical.

As Rita indicates here, she is interested in a'socially monogamous, intimate relationship' that may or may not involve sex. Rita also implies that she is amenable io maintaining an intimate relationship while her partner finds alternative sexual releasis. \(hile varying widely in configuration, Katia, of asexual, polyam- Jessica and Rita all provide some initial conceptio_ns Lrous rel"tionships that future research should explore in more detail.

CONCLUSION

Taken together these themes indicate that scholarship on polyamory and non-monogamy may be enriched by considering individuals with asexual identities, ls well ,t irdiridu"ls not interested in sex or sexual behaviors. First, these data indicate that concepts, such as monogamy' are socially imbued with sexual connotations. Interestingly, the sexually-laden connotations of monogamy may have opened the door for some to consider polyamorous relatiinship structures. Additionally, this chapter invites fur- ih"i.o.rr.rration as to what the many forms of monogamy might look like, particularly outside of sexual monogamy. This .hrpt", also describes how language for relationships is limited for asexual individuals, as well as those who do not engage in sexual behaviors. For several purii.ipu.r6, binary relationship categories, such as 'single' Asexual Relationships 159 and 'taken,' or 'friendship' and 'intimate,' felt false. Rather, as casey described earlier, there is a 'spectrum of relationships' that ,.. ,ror.rptur.i by co_ntemporary categories. similar to those in polyamorous communities (Ritchie and Barker, 2005) asexual individuals-are actively restructuring and rewriting their relationships, opening up possibilities io, reimaginin[ all of our lives. Finally, these data illuminate that there are many forms of polyamorous relationships. while the diversity of polyamorous relarionririp, ,." well established (Klesse, zoo6a; Sheff, 2005i, the few studies of polyamory that have been conducted thus far have expended relatively littli attention to those relationships that do not explicitly involve sex. This artention to sexual polyamorous relationships unintentionally reinscribes the idea that lllramoliel are primarily about sexual behavior. Future studies might use- fully include an investigation of individuals in polyamorous relatilnships who do not engage in sexual behaviors.

NOTES

1. lfhile popular-understa_ndings of polyamory are largely centered on sexual behaviors, academic and activist diicourses hru. lurgJly fo.ur.; ;l"u", ;;;- aling a conscious distinction between sex and love i"n iolyamorous relationships (see- Kle ese, z0o6a, for a more nuanced discussio'n ,h. .;;;.quences of these discourses). "'f